THE

Spiritual Magazine.

NOVEMBER, 1872.

THE SPIRIT-PHOTOGRAPH CONTROVERSY.

THE last number of the Spiritualist again repeats its statements as to a large number of these photographs being spurious, but, as before, without furnishing any proofs. And how recklessly some of these statements are made, and how little credence is to be attached to them when unsupported by proof, will be evident from one or two examples. Our contemporary says we "write critical articles about photographs we have never taken the trouble to go and see.' Now, if this were true, which it is not, how could the writer know it? Is he always at Mr. Hudson's studio, or have his investigations there been limited, as we understand, to a single visit? We have not only seen, but have in our possession probably a more extensive collection of these portraits than he seems to have any idea of. Again, he says, "It is also to be regretted that he innocently goes for all the information he wants to Messrs. Herne and Williams, and prints what they tell him without investigation." So far from going to Messrs. Herne and Williams for all the information we want, we have never been to them for any information. With Mr. Herne we have had no communication on the subject, and our communication with Mr. Williams has been limited to the occasion when he called on us and left the letter published in our last number. We then asked him if Mr. Pycock would not put his statement in writing, that it might be beyond dispute; but he said Mr. Pycock had declined to do this, as the editor of the Spiritualist was his personal friend, but that he was willing to confirm verbally the statement he had that afternoon made to him. Mr. Pycock has now written a letter, which appears in our contem

N.S.-VII.

2 G

porary, denying that he made the statements attributed to him by Mr. Williams, and that he had determined to have nothing further to do with these charges. We leave it to Mr. Williams, when he returns to England, to settle this account with Mr. Pycock, as well as to dispose of other matters upon which it is not our business to enter.

Our contemporary repeats that "the Spiritual Magazine sets up the desperate defence that spirits put the many marks of double exposure on Mr. Hudson's plates." The Spiritual Magazine has used no such language; to say that the appearances in question are "put there" by spirits, would imply that they were placed there purposely, and by design. We no more affirm this than we would affirm that the likeness to the medium in the spirit-faces at the séances of Miss Florence Cook, which our contemporary reports is "put there" by spirits, though we are told that the spirit Katie says, that when they begin making these faces they are as much like the medium as pieces of jelly turned out of the same mould. So we are told by the editor in reporting a private séance. "A visitor present watched the (spirit) lights, and said they were carried by hands, and drew therefrom, conclusions not particularly favourable to the medium. This is a common mistake with enquirers, as all Spiritualists know very well that materialised spirit-hands feel just the same as the hands of living human beings." If then it is necessary to exercise caution in drawing conclusions lest we fall into what is the 66 common mistake" of judging as to spirit-faces and spirithands, from first and superficial appearances, may not a little further experience and consideration teach our contemporary to extend the same wise caution to his conclusions as to spiritphotographs.

Here is an explanation given by one of the operating spirits themselves as to these much talked of marks of double exposure. "The appearances you see on my photograph are due to the spirit-aura. The success of our manifestations in these cases is to bring ourselves within the sphere of the sitter, and to amalgamate that sphere with our own. When rays of light pass through this mixed aura they are refracted, and often cause things to be apparent on the plate which we cannot account for. You will know better about these things by-and-bye."*

6

We are told by the Spiritualist that "the 'ghost' in the now celebrated picture of the double of Mr. Herne is not himself, but his brother Willie,'" is another "desperate defence set up' by the Spiritual Magazine. It is not our defence but that of the spirit himself, who appeared in propria persona to a room full of

*Human Nature, October, page 448.

people, and said audibly to all, "I am Willy Herne, brother to the medium. It is I who appeared on the plate.' Our contemporary in this, as in the matter of "double exposure," is however better informed, and so contradicts and corrects the spirits. We are stupid enough to think the spirits know their own business best, and to prefer the explanations of those who know to that of those who only fancy that they know.

Some months ago Mr. Hudson, against whom in certain quarters a strong professional animus existed, was under its influence threatened with a prosecution on account of these spirit-photographs. After consulting his solicitors, Mr. Hudson issued the following notice: "In consequence of threats of prosecution for witchcraft, cheating, &c., and remembering the sufferings of Mr. Mumler, by the advice of my solicitors, I will not guarantee them as spirit-photographs; I leave the sitters to form their own conclusions. I will have no controversy." In the last and previous number of the Spiritualist the words are quoted from this statement-"I will not guarantee them as spirit-photographs ;" the context being entirely omitted. Is this quite fair?

Dr. Ferguson, on behalf of the Davenports, constantly said at their public séances, "We do not say that these things are done by spirits; we do not say how they are done. We are simply exhibitors of facts, and we leave you to form your own conclusions." Yet we are not aware that even the silliest and most rabid of the opposition journals ever construed this into an admission of imposture, as our contemporary does in the case of Mr. Hudson. Surely, that gentleman is not called upon to decide for his sitters whether the photographs on which a double figure appears are produced by spirit-power, or "psychic force," or "od force," or any other force. On these he very properly, we think, says he leaves his sitters to form their own conclusions. All that he can be expected to guarantee is that they are genuine, and if our contemporary only wants that assurance he may be easily contented. The statement that we have "guaranteed" these or any spirit-photographs is not true; we have simply pointed out that the charges of imposture in the case are not proven; and as to the value of the evidence volunteered on the other side, like Mr. Hudson, we leave our readers to form their own conclusions.

Our contemporary, in a former number, referred us to Mr. Guppy as a great authority in this matter. Accordingly we called on that gentleman to learn his latest views on the subject and the grounds of them. But though he received us with his usual courtesy, he declined to enlighten us on the point; from him we could elicit nothing. Mrs. Guppy, however, was not so

reticent; she said: "I at first was very indignant, I believed that Hudson had cheated on the authority of a person whom I now know to be utterly unworthy of credit. I am now satisfied that these photographs are genuine, and that some of us will have to eat a good deal of dirt over this business." In speaking of the alleged double exposure, Mrs. Guppy reminded us that on the plate which Mr. Slater took with him to Mr. Hudson's, and on which a “fine spirit-figure" was obtained, he taking the picture with his own camera, there were yet stronger marks of apparent double exposure than perhaps on any other. It is very well for our contemporary to call for copies of the picture obtained by Mr. Russell on which marks of double exposure appeared with only a single exposure. This plate he will see, by reference to Mr. Russell's letter, "is disfigured by a streak across it, caused by a double film of collodion." Perhaps it is on this account that copies of it have not been printed; but if the negative is preserved we venture to say it will not be withheld from examination." But why has our contemporary overlooked the photograph taken by Mr. Slater and the statement of Dr. Dixon, that along with an undoubted portrait of his spiritson there are clear marks of (apparent) double, if not treble exposure? The plate is in possession of Mr. Henry Dixon, photographer, Albany Street. There are two other plates on which Dr. D. appears, and which he therefore asked to be allowed to keep, which also exhibit according to Mr. H. Dixon, "photographic" marks of more than one exposure, but which bear incontestable evidence of being genuine spirit-photo-graphs.

We have, however, no wish to prolong this controversy which time and fuller knowledge must soon render obsolete. Our contemporary concedes the genuineness of some at least of these portraits. It says, "We know that all along Mr. Hudson has produced a certain proportion of real spirit-pictures." Similarly, spirit-pictures have been obtained by many photographers, professional and amateur, and in many lands. That is the one valuable fact for the world that will remain when all our squabbles and scandals are forgotten. For the rest we can afford to wait, and if we cannot agree, at least agree to differ.*

One feature in these photographs-the spirit-drapery-is of much interest, and that our readers might have the best information on this point, we applied to a gentleman who has given to it special attention, and he has kindly favoured us with the following article.

In reference to some correspondence which came too late for insertion in our last number, and which now appears in the Spiritualist, see notices on

wrapper.

SPIRIT-PHOTOGRAPHS AND SPIRIT-DRAPERY.

To the Editor of the "Spiritual Magazine."

Sir,-You asked me to give you what information I have been able to gather from my own experience and from what I have noticed of the recent manifestations of the spiritual drapery. I have written an account, skimming over the phenomena that I have witnessed at several séances, but to suit the object desired by you, I think it wise to take these phenomena collaterally with those of the spiritual photographs, obtained through the mediumship of Mr. Hudson combined with the power of other physical mediums, notably Messrs. Herne and Williams, through whom now and for some time past these special manifestations I have referred to have occurred.

The development of power! How strikingly was this shown in the first attempts at spirit-photography, until at length that beautiful figure came forth perfect in its attitude of benediction over Mrs. Guppy and her little boy! The counterpart of that photograph I have seen, touched, and spoken with; the style of the drapery being undoubtedly the same in every respect-the white band round the forehead, and the loose sleeves hanging over the arms. From this I am led to think that on the two occasions that on which the photograph was taken and that when in the séance room I saw and spoke with the spirit—the operation of development must have been the same partially, simply stopping before that drapery became materially visible in the one case, but sufficiently material to act upon and reflect the actinic or chemical rays of light which it would appear from experiments that have been made since have an antagonistic power over the further progress of the manifestations. The drapery on this figure of Katie in the photo is, it may be noticed, very different from that in some photos which appeared. later, and which had a much greater semblance to the conventional sheet. This led to questions being asked, why the spirits appeared in such costumes, and not in more ordinary attire? The answer given was peculiar, viz., that they were compelled to gather the spiritual essence from what drapery was handy, and the blinds of the photographic studio were most handy for this purpose. Seeing mediums have told me that they have seen the spirits drawing the magnetism, or whatever force it may be called, in this manner, and so clothing themselves in the drapery so formed.

In proof of what they said, Mr. Pycock, of Brooke's Hotel, Surrey Street, Strand, was told to take some drapery with him